Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV20616, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV20616 Hearing Date: September 7, 2022 Dept: 32
PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged). Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
TENTATIVE RULING
|
DEPARTMENT |
32 |
|
HEARING DATE |
September 7, 2022 |
|
CASE NUMBER |
22STCV20616 |
|
MOTIONS |
Demurrer to Complaint; Motion to Strike Punitive Damages |
|
MOVING PARTY |
Defendant El Zarape Cocina on Melrose, Inc. |
|
OPPOSING PARTY |
None |
Plaintiffs Deiler Arriaza and Maritza Botello (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued defendant El Zarape Cocina on Melrose, Inc. based on injuries Plaintiffs allege they sustained on property owned and controlled by Defendant. Defendant demurs to the fourth cause of action for assault, fifth cause of action for battery, and sixth cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Plaintiffs’ complaint. Defendant also moves to strike Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages. Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.
The Court finds Defendant’s service of the demurrer and motion to strike on Plaintiffs on August 16, 2022, by electronic transmission to be inadequate notice per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) [18 court days – September 12, 2022.) The Court therefore overrules the demurrer and denies the motion as procedurally defective.
Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.